US federal judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal with prejudice

As reported by Reuters, South China Morning Post and Associated Press. The allegations below are theirs, not Vocemundi's.

A US federal judge on Saturday dismissed President Donald Trump's lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal. Reuters, AP and the South China Morning Post all report the dismissal. Reuters based its report on a court filing.

The dismissal was with prejudice. According to the South China Morning Post, this means the case cannot be refiled.

The case

According to AP and the South China Morning Post, the lawsuit also named media mogul Rupert Murdoch as a defendant. Both outlets describe it as a "multibillion-dollar" lawsuit. Their wording is near-identical, so the two accounts may trace back to a single origin.

The same two outlets report that the lawsuit concerned a Wall Street Journal story about Trump's ties to financier Jeffrey Epstein. Their headlines describe the case as relating to an "Epstein birthday letter".

The ruling

According to the South China Morning Post, the judge was US District Judge Darrin Gayles, sitting in Miami.

The newspaper reported that the judge ruled the president did not prove the defendants made defamatory statements with actual malice.

The South China Morning Post also reported that the ruling said the lawsuit attempted to "manufacture" flaws in the Journal's investigative reporting. The newspaper quoted the ruling as using the phrase "grasping at straws".

These details about the judge and the ruling's language appear in the South China Morning Post's report. They are not found in AP's summary.

What the reports do not include

The reports reviewed by Vocemundi leave several questions open:

• They do not include any reaction from Trump, his legal team, The Wall Street Journal, its publisher or Rupert Murdoch.
• They do not say whether Trump intends to appeal the dismissal.
• They do not give the exact amount of damages sought.
• They do not describe the content of the Journal's story or of the "birthday letter" at the centre of the case.
• They do not say when the lawsuit was filed.
• They do not provide the full text of the ruling or a direct link to the court filing.

According to the South China Morning Post, the ruling found that the president did not prove the defendants acted with actual malice. The reports reviewed by Vocemundi do not include statements from the parties.

Vocemundi note: this story relays allegations published by Reuters, South China Morning Post and Associated Press. Vocemundi did not have access to the underlying evidence or documents and has not independently verified these claims. The people and organisations named are presumed innocent; their response is included where it was available.

Analysis

A dismissal with prejudice is a significant procedural outcome. According to the South China Morning Post, it means the case cannot be refiled. The reports do not say whether an appeal is planned. If the president's side appeals, a higher court could review the ruling. If not, the decision would stand as reported. The South China Morning Post reports that the ruling turned on whether actual malice was proven. Supporters and critics of the lawsuit may draw different conclusions about press freedom and accountability. Reactions from the parties, which the reports do not include, will likely shape how the case is read.

Produced by the Vocemundi newsroom with AI assistance.